scholarly journals PEMBATASAN HAK KASASI DAN KONSEKUENSI HUKUM BAGI PENCARI KEADILAN DALAM SISTEM PERADILAN TATA USAHA NEGARA DI INDONESIA

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 299
Author(s):  
Agus Budi Susilo

There were appeal legal effort, cassation and judicial review on Administrative Court. After the Supreme Court Act article 45A paragraph (2) letter c was applied, it was determined that not all administrative settlement dispute can be filled to cassation legal effort. The setting restriction poses legal problems to justice seekers. This article aims to study the solution of cassation rights setting restrictions so that it can be mutual for administrative justice seekers. Based on the analysis that has been done it can be concluded that the regulation on Supreme Court Act article 45A paragraph (2) letter c Act number 5 2014 was not clear in procedures and substantive. Thus the setting restriction in cassation legal effort has to consider the aspect of quality and cases type.Keywords : The restriction of cassation right, Administrative Justice System,justice seeker

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 67-82
Author(s):  
Muhibuddin Muhibuddin ◽  
Mahdi Syahbandir ◽  
M. Nur Rasyid

Pasal 45A Ayat (2) huruf c Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2004 tentang Mahkamah Agung membatasi pengajuan upaya hukum kasasi terhadap perkara tata usaha negara yang objek gugatannya berupa keputusan pejabat daerah. Pembatasan ini menimbulkan ketidakadilan bagi pencari keadilan (yustisiable) yang ingin mendapatkan keadilan jika pada tingkat pertama dan banding tidak diterima gugatannya. Di samping itu, pembatasan tersebut telah merubah sistem peradilan di Indonesia yang terdiri dari tingkat pertama, banding dan kasasi. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk mengetahui alasan pembatasan upaya hukum dalam Undang-Undang Nomor 5 Tahun 2004, tinjauan keadilan kepada warga negara dan asas-asas pembentukan perundang-undangan yang baik. Penelitian ini merupakan penelitian yuridis normatif  yang ingin mengidentifikasi dari aspek hukumnya. Data yang digunakan terdiri bahan hukum primer, sekunder dan tersier. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa pembatasan pengajuan upaya hukum untuk mengurangi penumpukan perkara di Mahkamah Agung. Akibat pembatasan tersebut sangat merugikan warga negara yang ingin memperjuangkan haknya dan tidak mencerminkan asas-asas pembentukan peraturan perundang-undangan yang baik.Article 45 (2) point C of the Act Number 5, 2004 on the Supreme Court Especially Limiting judicial review on the decision of the object of civil administrative state’s case which its lawsuit is the decision of officials in district, municipality or provincial officials. The limitation is not fair towards every justice seekers who are willing to obtain justices in the first court and the court of appeal have not tried the cases fairly. Apart from that the limitation has changed the justice system in Indonesia consisting of the first instance court, the court of appeal, and review court of the Supreme Court. This research aims to know the reasons of such limitation in the Act Number 5, 2004, justice review for citizens and principles of well law making. This is juridical normative research, which is trying to identify legal substances. The sources of data are secondary that are primary, secondary and tertiary legal sources. The research shows that the limitation of judicial review is to reduce the number of cases at the Supreme Court. The result of the nullification causes loss for citizens who are trying to fight for their rights and it does not reflect the principle of well law making process.


2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 106
Author(s):  
Seno Wibowo Gumbira

Abstrak Permasalahan upaya hukum luar biasa pada Peninjauan Kembali khususnya pada proses peradilan pidana di Indonesia Pasca Putusan judicial review Mahkamah Konstitusi Nomor 34/PPU-XI/2013 dan SEMA RI No 7 Tahun 2014 yang dikeluarkan oleh Mahkamah Agung RI sama-sama memiliki permasalahan yuridis dan bertentangan dengan asas-asas baik dalam lingkup sistem peradilan pidana dan asas ilmu perundang-undangan di Indonesia, asas tersebut meliputi asas ne bis in idem, asas peradilan cepat, sederhana dan biaya ringan, asas litis finiri oportet, dan sedangkan pada ilmu perundang-undangan asas lex superior derogate legi inferior. Dapat juga dikatakan bahwa judicial review Mahkamah Konstitusi berpotensi merusak pilar hukum karena jika menyatakan suatu ketentuan hukum hanya satu undang-undang saja, yang mana peraturan perundang-undangan yang 1 bertentangan dengan peraturan perundang-undang lainnya seperti contoh Putusan MK Nomor 34/PPU-XI/2013 pada Pasal 268 ayat 3 Undang-Undang Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 dinyatakan tidak memiliki kekuatan hukum tetap tentang Peninjauan Kembali hanya dilakukan 1 kali saja, sedangkan pada Pasal 24 ayat 2 Undang-Undang No. 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman dengan Pasal 66 ayat 1 Undang-Undang No. 3 Tahun 2009 tentang Mahkamah Agung, kedua instrument hukum tersebut menyatakan bahwa pengajuan Peninjauan Kembali hanya dapat diajukan 1 kali. Solusi agar tidak menimbulkan problematika adalah bahwa  Mahkamah Agung tidak perlu menerbitkan SEMA RI No 7 Tahun 2014 tersebut, cukup menggunakan Undang-Undang Kekuasaan Kehakiman dan Undang-Undang Mahkamah Agung yang menyatakan Peninjauan kembali hanya 1 kali, selain itu perlu optimalisasi pembuktian dalam proses peradilan pidana oleh semua pihak. Kata Kunci: judicial review, Peninjauan Kembali, Sistem Peradilan Pidana. Abstract Problems of extraordinary legal remedy on Reconsideration, especially in the criminal justice process in Indonesia following the Ruling of judicial review of the Constitutional Court Number 34 / PPU-XI / 2013 and SEMA Decree No. 7 of 2014 issued by the Supreme Court had the same problem  juridical in contradictory with the principles both within the criminal justice system and the principle of the science of law in Indonesia, those principles include the principle of ne bis in idem, the principle of justice which one quick, simple and low cost, the principle of litis finiri oportet, It is on the principle of lex superior derogate legi inferior. It can also be said that the judicial review of the Constitutional Court has the potential to undermine the pillars of legal systems as when stating a legal provision is only base on one law, in which is in fact the legislation is incontracdictory with other laws such as of Constitutional Court Decision No. 34 / PPU-XI / 2013 on Article 268 paragraph 3 of Law No. 8 of 1981 that have no binding legal force, meanwhile in Article 24 paragraph 2 of Law No. 48 Year 2009 regarding Judicial Power with Article 66 paragraph 1 of Law No. 3 of 2009 on the Supreme Court, both legal instrument states that the filing of a judicial review can only be submitted one time. A solution that does not cause the problems is that the Supreme Court did not need to issue SEMA Decree No. 7 of 2014 the court simple use the Law of Judicial Power and the Law of the Supreme Court which states Reconsideration should be only one time in addition to the necessary optimize evidence of proof in the criminal justice process by all Parties. Keywords: judicial review, Reconsideration, the Criminal Justice System


2016 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pan Mohamad Faiz

Indonesia implements dualism of judicial review system because there are two different judicial institutions that are granted the authority to review laws and regulations, namely the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. This research aims to analyse the problems caused by the dualism of judicial review system. It found two main legal problems of the current system. First, there is an inconsistency of decisions concerning judicial review cases for the same legal issues decided by the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court. Second, there is no mechanism to review the constitutionality of People’s Consultative Assembly (MPR) decisions and regulations under the level of law. Based on these findings, this research suggests that the authority to review all laws and regulations should be integrated under the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court.Keywords: Constitutional Court, Constitutional Review, Judicial Review


2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 276-293
Author(s):  
Mateusz Radajewski

Summary The article concerns the issue of constitutionality of the reform of the justice system in Poland in 2017–2018, which resulted in significant changes of the functioning of the National Council of the Judiciary and the Supreme Court. When discussing the reform of the Supreme Court, the author first of all points to the constitutional problems associated with the premature retirement of some of its judges, which is also connected with the interruption of the six-year term of the First President of the Supreme Court. A separate issue discussed in the article is the introduction to the Supreme Court the lay judges, which is a unique phenomenon on the global scale. The analyses lead the author to formulate final conclusions, also referring to the European regulations and to refer to the unconstitutionality of the solutions adopted by the Polish parliament.


1999 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 216-258 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Gavison

A discussion of the role of courts in Israel today demands some introductory remarks. The Supreme Court and the President of the Supreme Court enjoy great acclaim and respect within Israel and abroad, but have recently come under attack from a variety of sources. These attacks are often confused, and many of them are clearly motivated by narrow partisan interests and an inherent objection to the rule of law and judicial review. But these motives do not necessarily weaken the dangers which the attacks pose to the legitimacy of the courts in general, and the Supreme Court in particular, in Israel's public life. The fact that in some sectors extremely harsh criticism of the court is seen to be an electoral boost, testifies to the serious and dangerous nature of the threat. This situation creates a dilemma for those who want a strong and independent judiciary, believing it is essential for freedom and democracy, but who also believe that, during the last two decades, the courts have transgressed limits they should respect. The dilemma becomes especially acute when the political echo sounds out in one's criticism, and when one is part of the group that believes that the legal and the judicial systems have made some contribution to the prevalence of these hyperbolic and dangerous attacks, as I am.


2020 ◽  
Vol 65 (1) ◽  
pp. 121-132
Author(s):  
Dariusz Kużelewski

Abstract The objective of the paper is to present the role of the non-professional judge in Poland as an important manifestation of civic culture based on citizens’ activity in the sphere of justice among other things. The paper also highlights the importance of an appropriate selection of citizens who are to adjudicate and possibly place restrictions on access to judicial functions using the example of Polish law. The last part addresses the problem of the gradual reduction of the participation of lay judges in the Polish justice system and the controversial attempts to halt this trend, such as the introduction of lay judges to the Supreme Court and the start of discussions on the introduction of the justice of the peace to common courts.


2007 ◽  
Vol 101 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-338 ◽  
Author(s):  
THOMAS M. KECK

This paper explores three competing accounts of judicial review by comparing the enacting and invalidating coalitions for each of the fifty-three federal statutes struck down by the Supreme Court during its 1981 through 2005 terms. When a Republican judicial coalition invalidates a Democratic statute, the Court's decision is consistent with a partisan account, and when a conservative judicial coalition invalidates a liberal statute, the decision is explicable on policy grounds. But when an ideologically mixed coalition invalidates a bipartisan statute, the decision may have reflected an institutional divide between judges and legislators rather than a partisan or policy conflict. Finding more cases consistent with this last explanation than either of the others, I suggest that the existing literature has paid insufficient attention to the possibility of institutionally motivated judicial behavior, and more importantly, that any comprehensive account of the Court's decisions will have to attend to the interaction of multiple competing influences on the justices.


Author(s):  
Kenneth Hamer

The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of cause of action estoppel applied to successive complaints before a professional disciplinary body, that disciplinary proceedings were civil in nature and that therefore the principles of res judicata applied, and that there was no reason why cause of action estoppel should not apply to successive sets of proceedings before the Disciplinary Committee of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales (ICAEW). The Supreme Court so held in allowing an appeal by C-W, a chartered accountant, against the Court of Appeal, which had upheld the dismissal of his application for judicial review of the decision by the Committee to refuse to dismiss a second complaint based on the same facts of a first complaint that had been dismissed on the merits.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document